Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor is essential after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), while many studies have focused on determining the optimal degree of platelet inhibition and optimal DAPT duration to minimize complications after PCI. Current guidelines developed by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and the European Society of Cardiology summarize previous studies and provide recommendations. However, these guidelines are mainly based on Western patients, and their characteristics might differ from those of East Asian patients. Previous data suggested that East Asian patients have unique features with regard to the response to antiplatelet agents. On comparing Western and East Asian patients, it was found that East Asian patients have a lower rate of ischemic events and higher rate of bleeding events after PCI, despite a higher on-treatment platelet reactivity, which is referred to as the “East Asian paradox.” As the main purpose of DAPT is to minimize ischemic and bleeding complications after PCI, these differences should be clarified before adopting the guidelines for East Asian patients. Therefore, in this article, we will review various issues regarding DAPT in East Asian patients, with a focus on the unique characteristics of East Asian patients, previous studies regarding antiplatelet agents in East Asian patients, and a guideline from an East Asian perspective.
Asian Continental Ancestry Group ; Aspirin ; Blood Platelets ; Cardiology ; Heart ; Hemorrhage ; Humans ; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor is essential after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), while many studies have focused on determining the optimal degree of platelet inhibition and optimal DAPT duration to minimize complications after PCI. Current guidelines developed by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and the European Society of Cardiology summarize previous studies and provide recommendations. However, these guidelines are mainly based on Western patients, and their characteristics might differ from those of East Asian patients. Previous data suggested that East Asian patients have unique features with regard to the response to antiplatelet agents. On comparing Western and East Asian patients, it was found that East Asian patients have a lower rate of ischemic events and higher rate of bleeding events after PCI, despite a higher on-treatment platelet reactivity, which is referred to as the “East Asian paradox.” As the main purpose of DAPT is to minimize ischemic and bleeding complications after PCI, these differences should be clarified before adopting the guidelines for East Asian patients. Therefore, in this article, we will review various issues regarding DAPT in East Asian patients, with a focus on the unique characteristics of East Asian patients, previous studies regarding antiplatelet agents in East Asian patients, and a guideline from an East Asian perspective.

Oral antithrombotic therapy (antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulation therapy) is a key element of pharmacotherapy in patients with cardiovascular (CV) disease. Several reports of ethnic differences have suggested that there may be difference therapeutic requirements and response to therapy for antithrombotic therapy. In particular for East Asians, there seems to be a lower incidence of ischemic outcomes and a higher incidence of bleeding outcomes compared to Westerners. The purpose of this review is to describe the ethnicity-related differences in antithrombotic therapy for CV disease and to discuss the need to establish a more effective and targeted antithrombotic treatment strategy in East Asians.

Background/Aims: Initiation of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) during hospitalization is recommended for patients with heart failure (HF). However, GDMT is underutilized in real-world practice. This study evaluated the role of a discharge checklist on GDMT. Methods: This was a single-center, observational study. The study included all patients hospitalized for HF between 2021 and 2022. The clinical data were retrieved from the electronic medical records and discharge checklist published by the Korean Society of Heart Failure. The adequacy of GDMT prescriptions was evaluated in three ways: the total number of GDMT drug classes and two types of adequacy scores. The primary endpoint was the incidence of all-cause mortality or rehospitalization due to HF within 2 months of discharge. Results: Overall, the checklist was completed by 244 patients (checklist group) and was not completed in 171 patients (non-checklist group). The baseline characteristics were comparable between two groups. At discharge, a higher proportion of patients in the checklist group received GDMT than in the non-checklist group (67.6% vs. 50.9%, p = 0.001). The incidence of primary endpoint was lower in the checklist group compared to the non-checklist group (5.3% vs. 11.7%, p = 0.018). The use of the discharge checklist was associated with significantly lower risk of death and rehospitalization in the multivariable analysis (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.23–0.92; p = 0.028). Conclusions Discharge checklist usage is a simple but effective strategy for GDMT initiation during hospitalization. The discharge checklist was associated with better outcome in patients with HF.

Objective: Recent studies have raised concern about the cardiovascular safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors. We performed a systematic review through meta-analysis to compare cardiovascular outcomes of sulfonylurea (SU) versus DPP4 inhibitors when used in combination with metformin. Methods: After searching for trials using combination therapy of metformin with DPP4 inhibitor or SU in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase, one prospective observation study and 15 randomized controlled studies were selected. Results: Regarding the primary analysis endpoint, there were no significant differences in the risk of all-cause mortality between SU and DPP4 inhibitors as an add-on therapy to metformin (random-effect relative risk [RR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98–1.33;p=0.811; I2 =0%). Cardiovascular death was also similar between the two drug classes in the five studies which reported outcomes (random-effect RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.83–1.27; p=0.517; I2 =0%). Furthermore, there were no significant differences in major adverse cardiac events (MACE), coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke and heart failure. However, there were less hypoglycemic events and weight gain in the DPP4 inhibitor group as compared with the SU group (random-effect RR, 3.79; 95% CI, 1.53–9.39; p<0.001; I2 =98.2 and weighted mean difference, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.07–2.29; p<0.001; I2 =94.7, respectively). Conclusion As add-on therapy to metformin, there were no significant differences in allcause mortality and cardiovascular mortality between DPP4 inhibitors and SUs.